Workshop boards

Contribution 01

① Scale this for national purpose.

Contribution 02

1. What would success look like by the end of the project: 2. Having a tool that help Nigeria measure standing biomass which can be used by stakeholders to manage rangeland. 3. Awareness for all identified stakeholders successfully raised, indicated by the adoption of the tool.

Contribution 03

PROJECT SUCCESS: • Sustainable grazing systems • Reduced degradation and resilient rangelands

Contribution 04

A NETWORK OF USERS TAKING GRAZING DECISIONS (SUCCESS)

Contribution 05

Project success → define an adaptable and reproducible placeholder for use by interested countries.

Contribution 06

ODSS for grazing implemented in ~ 30 farms (ARG & UY) ① Usefulness of DSS assessed ↳ Hard data (biomass product) ↳ Opinions

Contribution 07

Project success: • defensible method for biomass estimation • DSTs using that data tested w/ users — EMILY

Contribution 08

Project Success: Seeing demonstration sites from targeted countries adopting our project data operationally.

Contribution 09

Success: Users can access data easily to make decisions.

Contribution 10

Every country has a functional network where they can implement their DSTs. (Project success)

Contribution 11

Project Success: Grazing decisions are made based on near-real time data / information.

Contribution 12

Project Success: - Time2Graze data effectively used in the 8 countries, for at least 5 stakeholders (each country) - Sustainability plan to scale up the Time2Graze solutions

Contribution 13

1. HIGHEST QUALITY BIOMASS ESTIMATION DATA TRANSLATED INTO ≠ FORMS ⇒ REACH ≠ PUBLICS • INFORM T2G • TRACK RECOVERY | EASY UPTAKE |

Contribution 14

Having a biomass data that is accurate / relevant at different landscapes and context.

Contribution 15

Project success: → There are clear understandings about the potentials and limitations; → Data is delivered in a way that reaches the end user and brings additional value for him/her.

Contribution 16

@ Project Success: People really using the data to decision making at farm level, in a way to improve production and mitigate land degradation.

Contribution 17

SUCCESS: COMMUNITIES HAVING A PRODUCTIVE RANGELAND THAT CAN SUSTAIN LIVESTOCK THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.

Contribution 18

Project Success: A network of engaged users using a workable DST for grazing management.

Contribution 19

The technical translation of key information to the DST developers.

Contribution 20

PROJECT SUCCESS: Large group of farmers / participants in every country adopting T2G decision support tools for their daily operation.

Contribution 01

Community integration: Plan how to integrate the local community into the platform to empower smallholders to make better, data driven decision. (Pasto Legal)

Contribution 02

(DELAY) → PRESENT → FAILURE TO FREQUENT ESTIMATIONS OF STANDING BIOMASS + COMPLEX SYSTEMS TO PICK UP FIELD DATA (BARRIERS)

Contribution 03

How does the data make DST work? / How does DST become domesticated?

Contribution 04

Project Barriers: Ground data collection methods (levels + types) & time.

Contribution 05

Time assigned to this project. (BARRIER)

Contribution 06

Project Barriers: Lack of feedback with concrete stakeholders about Time2Graze data and solutions.

Contribution 07

Lack of a concrete action plan with a concrete timeline per country. (Project barriers)

Contribution 08

Project barriers: 1. Tragedy of the commons 2. Farmer adoption 3. Inaccessibility of some areas 4. Conflicts with other projects e.g. Carbon credits

Contribution 09

Project Barriers: To get hung up on the known differences between the current countries.

Contribution 10

2. Project Barriers: Level of engagement we have with intended users during development and after DST is delivered.

Contribution 11

Community access and get people's trust.

Contribution 12

PROJECT BARRIERS: ADOPTION OF SUSTAINABLE RANGELAND MANAGEMENT.

Contribution 13

Project barriers: Limited outreach of outputs or not communicating the importance and power of the outputs to end-users.

Contribution 14

Project barriers: • DST not inspectable, changeable, shareable / scalable • DST not useful to stakeholders — EMILY

Contribution 15

Project barriers: RS data needs to be coupled with local knowledge; data is a proxy, never the landscape / ground truth reality.

Contribution 16

PROJECT BARRIERS: Getting too demanding on data accuracy (and spending too much time on it) as opposed to user experience and adoption.

Contribution 01

1) Adaptable protocol for my country / Data flow process.

Contribution 02

Workshop Outcome: Global plan of Action on sustainable rangeland management and use.

Contribution 03

Workshop Questions: - What kind of field data and knowledge we already have in the project? - How can we leverage on those?

Contribution 04

Workshop Questions: The approach to get data from the field to the AF systems.

Contribution 05

(Workshop Questions): - What are our indicators of success? - How do we scale up this project? Are there potential partners to do so?

Contribution 06

Workshop Question: Who do we need to be in contact with in each country as a stakeholder to make this project's outcomes operational?

Contribution 07

Workshop Questions: Focus on scenario based on each country and try to have separate principles based on each country's need.

Contribution 08

3. UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE ≠ MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, BUT 1ˢᵀ, HOW WE'LL GET INFORMATION ABOUT ≠ SPECIES, THEIR RESPONSE TO CALIBRATE SYSTEM.

Contribution 09

Workshop questions: - What is the scope of the DST? - How can we improve interaction in a faster manner?

Contribution 10

Workshop Questions: How can we holistically manage rangelands to ensure resilience and sustainability?

Contribution 11

What's the main data question we must be able to answer in each country?

Contribution 12

3. Workshop Questions: The information that is going to be provided in the DST.

Contribution 13

What do we need to clarify, learn or decide this week? - We need to identify and understand all the pieces of the puzzle. - National perspectives — Adaptable data mobilization strategy — DST development — Communication to stakeholders.

Contribution 14

Workshop questions: • Bite sized "nuggets" or open questions to tackle e.g. LUE determination? • Where are there cross-team dependencies? esp. in time — EMILY

Contribution 15

WORKSHOP QUESTIONS: Who will be in charge of translating the Google Earth Engine raw data into reliable biomass data for each in-country situation?

Contribution 16

We need to decide on the roadmap and responsibilities for the next technical deliverables.

Contribution 17

How does the integration between project components work?

Contribution 18

W/shop Que: 1) DST we using as consortium AND ITS ADAPTABILITY.

Contribution 01

Confidence in satellite data

2) Integration of data to validate satellite data.

Contribution 02

Stakeholder ID

Workshop Outcomes: Map of stakeholders to be contacted with.

Contribution 03

Stakeholder ID

WORKSHOP OUTCOMES: A clear identification of target users by each country team.

Contribution 04

MISC

(WORKSHOP OUTCOMES) • 2-3 MAIN NEXT STEPS TO CONTINUE.

Contribution 05

MISC

- I'd like to leave with a clear overview of the potential success stories that can demonstrate impact on the ground. These success stories have to involve at least a prototype of DST. (Project / Workshop outcomes)

Contribution 06

Tools

What do you want to leave the workshop having accomplished: To have better clarity on the linkage between the field data → DST Tools (in ctry) → Translation to End Users.

Contribution 07

Tools

W/SHOP OUTCOMES: 1) To have a tangible tool that I own.

Contribution 08

Collaboration

4. CONEXIONS: UNDERSTAND THE ROLES, THE NEEDS. How to Support EACH OTHER.

Contribution 09

Collaboration

- A common ground regarding project goals / roles - Expectation leveraged - Close and more dynamic interactions among groups

Contribution 10

Collaboration

4. Outcomes: How can we leverage the work in other countries and Remote Sensing team to be applied in Colombia and Brazil.

Contribution 11

Collaboration

Workshop outcomes: • "Directory" of faces + roles across consortium → role + expertise • Mtgs. set for bilateral follow up • "Thematic" subgroup mtgs. at some cadence set — EMILY

Contribution 12

Team roles & expectations, linkages

Know people/groups better - needs & strengths.

Contribution 13

Team roles & expectations, linkages

Workshop Outcomes: A clear understanding of project Vision/Mission and how I can suggest adaptation to our Country project implementation.

Contribution 14

Team roles & expectations, linkages

WORKSHOP OUTCOMES: A clear understanding of what is expected from the Remote Sensing team to provide to country teams.

Contribution 15

Team roles & expectations, linkages

WORKSHOP OUTCOMES: A clear understanding of what is expected from country teams to support the Remote Sensing team.

Contribution 16

Team roles & expectations, linkages

Strengthening ties with all partners.

Contribution 17

Team roles & expectations, linkages

Clear understanding of possible interactions with project partners.